Letters to the Editor

I am writing in response to your front-page article on the
endorsement by the National Association of State Boards of Education of
the "full inclusion'' of students with disabilities ("NASBE Endorses
'Full Inclusion' of Disabled Students,'' Nov. 4, 1992).

People involved in education cannot agree on school choice, on
promotion policies, on achievement testing, on curricula, teaching
approaches, or the distribution of condoms. But all the state boards of
education can agree on full inclusion for all disabled students?

It would be impossible for these people to agree on what constitutes
an educational program or process that is in the best interests of all
children.

This is obviously a money issue, pure and simple. The key may be
found in the paragraph in your story that says a new report from
îáóâå proposes that funds be provided
on the basis of instructional need, not head counts. That need seems to
have been already predetermined by the organization: full inclusion in
regular classrooms for all disabled students.

The article--and quite possibly the report--refuses to deal with the
real nature of some children, which might require that they not be in a
regular classroom.

All the abuses attributed to special-education services are
potentially true, somewhere, if not everywhere: over-identification,
segregation, stigmatization, and automatic perpetuation. We must do
better in overcoming these problems. Full inclusion may be an important
strategy to do this. However, no one seems to mention the potential
abuses of regular-classroom placements: isolation, lack of proper
attention and caring, lack of achievement, and, once again,
stigmatization. There is little doubt that these regular-classroom
abuses exist somewhere, if not everywhere.

Some educators would place the issue of full inclusion solely in the
realm of morality. Anything separate is evil. There may be a higher
immorality than separateness: lack of progress, lack of achievement,
lack of skills, and splintered learning of meaningless academic
trivia.

There is the issue that special education hasn't been effective.
Where, and for whom, and why? Because it has been too separate?
Unlikely. The regular classroom is not separate by definition. Has it
worked? Sometimes, but not all the time. Placing severely disabled
students in regular classrooms presupposes a level of individualization
that does not exist. In fact, the country's current orientation is
completely removed from meeting individual needs.

Some educators believe that disabled children will be much more
accepted, and society as a whole will show much greater compassion for
the disabled, if all children are in regular classrooms. Knowledge does
not necessarily lead to compassion.

There is a common belief that when disabled children are in physical
proximity to normal children they will tend to adopt more-normal
behavior patterns. This is obviously not the case with many autistic
children, who generally begin life surrounded by normal families.

Some suggest that disabled children will learn more from more
competent children in their midst. They might also learn less.

Everything addressed in this letter is potentially right and also
potentially wrong. Full inclusion is not the right thing to do. It is
one right thing to do, sometimes. Where it fails is at the level of
public policy and at the level of organizations that endorse it. Public
policy is choice in the form of a continuum of services.

Any organization like îáóâå or the
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development that endorses
full inclusion is taking an extremist position that has no place in an
educational system and a society that prides itself on its choices and
multiple ways to achieve a desired quality of life.

Laurence M. Lieberman
Educational Consultant
Newtonville, Mass.

To the Editor:

It's difficult to argue with a successful author and teacher,
particularly when she advocates the importance of being sensitive to
students' interests and needs. Yet, I would be remiss to allow certain
of Susan Ohanian's generalizations to go unchallenged ("Classroom
Structures That Really Count,'' Commentary, Dec. 2, 1992).

We are advised that in the typical education course one learns tasks
equivalent to "pass[ing] out paper.'' This indictment is then
juxtaposed with the author's critique of the California Literature
Project which (heaven forbid) includes required literary works. Worse,
teachers are spending time discussing what books students should read.
According to the author, such discussions should make all of us
"weep.''

First, let me say that I have been exposed to both English and
education courses throughout my career. In one graduate English course,
the professor fell asleep regularly during the latter part of the
period; in another, a supposed seminar of six students, our
distinguished professor lectured to us for the greater part of each
class period. Yet I am not prepared, as Ms. Ohanian apparently is, to
make a blanket indictment of one department based on the instructional
ineptitude of selected staff members.

Second, we are told that rather than teacher discusssion and
selection of core literary works, "student choice must be central to
our literature program.'' Her solution is to "surround children with
the sounds and sense of wonderful language.'' I am at a loss to
understand why Ms. Ohanian feels that teacher selection of a particular
literary work is antithetical to stimulating student interest and
choice. My own experience, as well as that of many of my friends, is
that the exposure to good literature--literary works selected by
teachers--led to broadening my interests and horizons.

Further, as a former English teacher I welcomed departmental
discussions on the quality of our literature and language programs.
Unfortunately, such dialogue was rare. Most meetings seemed to involve
more mundane matters, such as budget, copy-machine use, and other
administrivia.

We in education seem to have a deplorable habit of setting up good
guys-bad guys scenarios. The latest good guy seems to be "whole
language'' and its emphasis on student-selected materials; the bad guy
is "core literary works.'' Isn't it possible that both of these
emphases have valuable aspects which are complementary and beneficial
to students? Why must we always go from one extreme to another and, as
a result, incur the rightful wrath of our critics--who can't understand
why a simple matter of required reading of a few worthwhile selections
is a major barrier to a sound education for our students.

Most of us have the greatest admiration for the success and the
excellent writing of Ms. Ohanian. It is, therefore, particularly
disturbing that she has chosen to take a negative view of discussion of
worthwhile literary works. I think such discussion stimulates rather
than stultifies good teaching. I recently had the pleasure of seeing a
creative teacher use an Oprah Winfrey format in having 9th-grade
students portray various characters in Great Expectations--a required
reading that Ms. Ohanian deplores as of no real interest to students. I
am certain that the benefits of this experience far outweigh the damage
that will be done by not allowing students to have absolute "freedom of
choice.''

Joseph M. Appel
Superintendent
North Hunterdon Regional
High School District
Annandale, N.J.

To the Editor:

David Summergrad's heroic effort to raise funds for Boston's
íåôãï program ("A Reluctant 'Point of
Light,''' Commentary, Nov. 11, 1992) may help to keep it going one more
year, but it will not address the problem of educational inequality
which is at METCO's root.

When METCO was instituted 25 years ago, it was intended to last only
a few years. As Boston struggled with school integration and the grave
disparities between urban and suburban schools,
íåôãï provided some urban minority
students the opportunity to attend suburban schools rather than those
in their neighborhoods. Continued interest from students, parents, and
host suburban districts, along with the persisting gap in educational
quality between urban and suburban schools, have fueled METCO's
longevity.

By many measures, the program is indeed highly successful. There is
a long waiting list for students to enroll in METCO. Those who attend
the program, who are not selected on the basis of academic ability,
have higher graduation and college-attendance rates than urban students
who do not. Most importantly, METCO gives students and parents an
alternative to the often low-performing schools in their
neighborhood.

However, the continued existence of--and need for--the METCO program
is a testament to Boston's failure to improve its urban schools. It
would be a true loss to allow one of the few good alternatives for
students to disappear through lack of support, but it would be at least
as harmful to let a palliative divert attention from the real issue of
improving all schools to a level which would render METCO obsolete.

Lynne D. Sacks
Washington, D.C.

To the Editor:

The "Bilingual Education'' column in your Nov. 4, 1992, issue bore
two statements at which we take umbrage.

First, our organization, the Institute for Research in English
Acquisition and Development, or READ, never has issued any reports
"critical of native-language instruction.'' The study to which the
column refers, "Bilingual Immersion: A Longitudinal Evaluation of the
El Paso Program,'' is the first report we have released publicly
bearing READ's imprimatur. It will not, however, be our last.

Second, READ is committed to fostering free and open inquiry into
how students learn and acquire English. As a research organization, we
are not committed to any single teaching approach or political program.
Our mission never has been to promote one instructional method over
another, nor to engage in idle program bashing. Rather, we believe that
a variety of effective methods, including English immersion, should be
employed to help language-minority children achieve success in school
and in an integrated society.

We hope this sets the record straight.

John E. Rankin 3rd
Executive Director
Institute for Research in
English Acquisition and Development
Washington, D.C.

To the Editor:

You recently reported on a Presidential panel's response to the
issue of "war orphans'' created by the deployment of single parents in
the military ("Panel Urges Pentagon To Restrict Roles for Parents,''
Dec. 2, 1992). The panel had several suggestions, all of them in my
view detrimental to military readiness.

My answer to this concern, published in Navy Times on July 15, 1991,
was to establish residences for military dependents at various bases
around the country. These residences would serve a dual purpose. First,
of course, they would be a safe haven for dependents during a period of
mobilization. Secondly, they could serve as temporary residences for
dependents facing a transfer near the end of a school year, or for
those undergoing a family crisis (when Dad is at sea and Mom is
hospitalized, for example).

While this idea may seem to be outside the normal concern of the
U.S. Defense Department, it makes military sense. The soldier or sailor
who is constantly worried about the well-being of his child is not
combat-ready. These residences would increase our military
effectiveness rather than decrease it, as the Presidential panel's
recommendations would do.

Lieut. Comdr. Robert F. Welt
U.S. Naval Reserve
Mystic, Conn.

To the Editor:

I would like to respond to the negative article about the progress,
or lack thereof, made during the seven years of desegregation efforts
in Kansas City, Mo. (Across the Nation, Oct. 7, 1992).

You quote a report by a citizens' oversight group stating that the
district has made only "modest, incremental improvements.'' If students
have made modest, incremental improvements in 56 schools, this is a
phenomenal accomplishment for any urban district. As to the comment
that four magnet schools have lost white students since the magnets
were implemented, the emphasis should have been placed on the fact that
52 of 56 schools made improvements in racial balance.

Many of the thousands of people who have visited the Kansas City
schools during the past few years believe that Kansas City may
represent a model for urban districts. It is too bad this report
pointed out the negative aspects of the program. The very same facts,
presented in a different way, might have led readers to conclude that
Kansas City has a successful magnet-school and desegregation
program.

A report like that hurts progress. Think of it: Fifty-two of the
schools, despite these negative public reports, have successfully
attracted white students from 11 suburban districts.

I know that many of the members of the monitoring committee which
wrote the report are top-notch professionals wanting only the best for
Kansas City. But I hope that their future reports will first list the
tremendously successful aspects of the Kansas City program--and then
suggestions for improvement.

This ordinarily closely-guarded fact is that teachers grossly
inflate the grades they assign students. Starting with superintendents,
the pressure to exaggerate students' grades grows as it passes through
the educational chain of command. By the time this force reaches
classrooms, it normally is impossible for teachers to resist.

Woe betide the teachers who try to do so. They find no support here
from their unions. They are harassed by school administrators, berated
by parents, and ostracized by their teaching cohorts. Teachers learn
that the future of their professional careers can be jeopardized if
they do not lie to parents about their children's school
achievement.

Teachers who are conscience-stricken over this situation project a
lot of psychological denial about it. Some lower standards so that it
is easy for all students to get high marks. Others adopt the principle
that grades are not important. It is claimed that giving good grades to
unmotivated, underachieving students will change their attitudes to the
better. In certain schools, teachers even fear for their personal
safety, or that of their possessions, if they award honest grades.

The grade-inflation debacle has disastrous ramifications beyond
deluding parents about their children's achievement. By not dealing
seriously with this problem, the reform movements in education sow the
seed of their eventual inconsequentiality. Unless reform first answers
the question, "How can it be made possible for educators to operate
schools without flagrantly overstating the achievement of students?''
the best laid plans for improving our schools will flounder and prove
to be meaningless.

Patrick Groff
Professor Emeritus
San Diego State University
San Diego, Calif.

Web Only

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.